'In the very infancy of the colony, there existed in Adelaide a small body of immersed believers, who were known by the name of "Scotch Baptists." As to the doctrines held by this church, we may say they were distinctly "Scotch Baptist." In the first place they were highly Calvinistic, containing a good deal of election, fore-ordination and final perseverance. In the next place, it was taught, that in conversion the Holy Spirit acted directly upon the sinner's heart, in addition to the influence exerted through the word of God. And in the third place, that directly the sinner believed in the Lord Jesus, he received the Holy Spirit, was born again, born from above, and became one of the family of God. And consequently his immersion was not in order to the pardon of sins, or to his becoming a child of God. While we may say these were the doctrines of the church, perhaps we ought to qualify the statement. These were held by Captain Scott, and the majority of members had been longest connected with the cause, and who constituted its teachers and preachers.'1

In spite of the interest of G.F.Angas (a Commissioner of the South Australian Company based in London), the Baptists in Adelaide made unsatisfactory progress during the first years of settlement. Their numbers were too small to support a pastor and they were dominated first by officers of the Company then by rich members. The doctrinal questions which in England had split the denomination into fragments were revived in the colony, with the result that truce among the South Australian Baptists was only achieved after they divided into the familiar pattern of small exclusive sects. Baptist meetings began in July 1838 largely through the activity of David McLaren and W.B.Randell. (Mclaren was the Mangager of the South Australian Company.) McLaren did most of the preaching although John Peacock, the son of a Baptist minister in London, was sent out to take that responsibility. McLaren was not impressed with Peacock's sermons which he said lacked energy, were commonplace and superficial and not good enough for Adelaide. Stung by this criticism and unable to work with his dominating deacons, Peacock withdrew from the Baptists. On his resignation McLaren appealed to Angas for help.

David McLaren left the colony in 1841 and the congregation split over the 'close communion' issue. W.Finlayson, in whose home the Baptist meetings were first held, along with a group of others, went elsewhere. Angas sent Marcus Collison to take over from McLaren in the church, but he proved quite unsatisfactory. The third Baptist preacher selected by Angas was an ex-school teacher named Isaac Prior, who arrived early in 1842. For a few weeks he revived the dispirited cause, but ran into difficulties with his deacons on the subject of 'close communion.' The deacons were William Scott and Thomas Neill.

Information indicates that in both Scotland and South Australia, good-will prevailed initially among the Scotch Baptists and the Restorationists. It was common practice for Scotch Baptists to hold weekly communion and practice immersion for believers but not for 'baptism for the remission of sins.' The few who sought to promote this teaching were but a small voice and easily contained.

From 1836 onwards, after the publication of Alexander Campbell's writings by Rev.William Jones, the teachings of the restoration movement crept into Scotch and English Baptist congregations. Members from all over the country, from this time on, took definite steps to make a public stand. "For more than 30 years Bother Studdard has been pleading for a reformation in the Baptist churches advocating a return to first principles, to the entire rejection of all human traditions in the worship of God. In the month of August 1837, two persons were baptised into Jesus for the remission of sins, when a church (Huddersfield) was formed consisting of six individuals, Bother Studdard being chosen as president."3 In 1848 James Wallis reported similar practices in Baptist churches but an unwillingness to share with those who had found greater meaning through the teachings of Campbell. "There are many Baptist churches in Scotland and some few in England, Ireland and Wales, who, in addition to our brethren, meet every first day of the week to break the loaf, in commemoration of the Lord's death. These churches, for reasons best known to themselves, will have no fellowship with us, as disciples of Christ. We are happy to know their objections are not founded on Bible Testimony. To cast away human dogmas, instilled into the mind in early days, is very difficult; but to their own Master they stand or fall."4

John Lawrie grew up in the Presbyterian church, befriended a Scotch Baptist minister and then joined the Kilmarnock Scotch Baptist church in 1836 when he was 26 years old. Not long after, though, he read the writings of Alexander Campbell first printed by a Baptist, William Jones of London and then by James Wallis of Nottingham. Lawrie came to disagree with the Baptists requiring a public confession of experience from candidates, as not serving any real purpose, and was sceptical about public confession of sin. He also rejected the Scotch Baptist Calvinistic doctrine. As John Lawrie grasped the real meaning of 'baptism for the remission of sins' he found the Scotch Baptists very restrictive. To give him the liberty to follow out his convictions, he commenced meetings in Newmilns in 1837. A church was officially formed in Newmilns, 24 October 1841. William Carson wrote from Dumfries in 1838, "I am happy to find that the contents of the Christian Messenger continue to give increased satisfaction to the intelligent, and that the work of reformation, though "uphill and difficult," is making progress. Much prejudice is already moved out of the way, and as for the time has been effected, as could be anticipated...It gives me great joy to inform you, that Scotland in several places has been visited with a New Testament revival. A goodly number of believers have been "immersed into Christ" at Kilmarnock, several at Newmilns, and a few at Biggar..."5

Tension between the Scotch Baptists and the disciples was reported by John Gowan at Glasgow in April 1840; "Brother G.C.Reid, from Dundee, has been here for a fortnight...we met with much opposition from a sect of Berean and other Baptists; one of whom declared that baptism for the remission of sins was an awful heresy! a damnable heresy! &c..."6

Tension also developed between the Baptists and the disciples in Kilmarnock on the arrival of G.C.Reid. (Reid was converted to Methodism while in his teens, was called to an Independent church at Dundee, Scotland in 1837; came to a restoration view while lecturing on 1 John; was baptised; broke up his church of three hundred members; "formed another on the basis of the New Testament; reared my voice against sectarian innovation; and as my reward, obtained the ill-will of every sectarian man and community."7 Reid became one of the first unofficial evangelists for the disciples in Scotland.) G.C.Reid arrived in Newmilns March 10, 1842, to consolidate the growing number of members. While there he was invited by two members from Kilmarnock (situated a short distance from Newmilns) to visit that place. Reid preached for three nights amidst great outbursts from Baptists but about 50-60 made the confession. A church was formed three days later, Sunday March 21, 1842.

On March 24, 1842, John Lawrie wrote of what was happening in Kilmarnock and reflected his views of the Scotch Baptists as they reacted to the disciples position. "You will have obtained notice of the wondrous work of the Lord in our neighbouring town of Kilmarnock: we hail it here as ominous of a new era in the history of this locality. In Newmilns and Kilmarnock, where the Baptists have long been engaged in devouring each other with their opposing opinions and sectarianism, there has been, I may almost say, a complete annihilation of their sectarianism effected. Having come all under the banner of the reformation, order has now taken the place of confusion; the book now, and obedience to the book, is the bond of union - the rallying point. Alas! for the folly and madness of our opinionative Baptists! they obtain and merit the contempt of the world, and have heretofore strangled the truth by their recriminations and contentions. I sincerely hope the disciples everywhere will keep a great distance from the rock on which Baptist churches have shipwrecked themselves, and hold fast the form of sound words...The reformation effected in Kilmarnock I hope will act and react upon all Baptist churches in Britain. I think I see other congregations around, which might, by vigorous effort, be taken by storm in like manner. There is one in Saltcoats, of forty-six members, cut off the list of sister churches by the Scotch Baptists, for their departure from Calvinism."8

Opposition intensified and Hugh Lauder (a former member of the Kilmarnock Scotch Baptist church) wrote six months later to say the Scotch Baptist church had almost ceased to exist. "The disciples in this place were much refreshed last Lord's day by the addition of four subjects to the King of Zion; two of them have just confessed the Lord Jesus and been immersed; one of them is from the Scotch Baptists (whose existence in Kilmarnock may be said to be drawing near to a close)."9

In April 1842, James Wallis in answer to a charge by a Scotch Baptist pastor that he was an heretic, outlined the circumstances leading up to division in the Nottingham church. "In the year 1836, a discussion took place in the Scotch Baptist church, Nottingham, respecting the true import and design of baptism. The church at that time consisted nominally of about one hundred members, Mr. John Bayley being the only pastor, with three deacons and two or three recognised preachers, exhorters &c. The average attendance of the members on the first day of the week to break bread, was not more that sixty to seventy, as noted by one of the brethren for six months together. The heart and soul of the majority of the people were one in the dogmas of John Calvin, somewhat modified by the writings of Mr.McLean of Edinburgh. The discussion commenced about three months after Mr.W.Jones, of London, had discontinued his Millenial Harbinger. It was carried on during the months of October, November and December, and for some time conducted with candour and brotherly feeling on both sides; so much so that Mr.Bayley proposed that all should continue as members of the church, on the condition that those who pleaded that baptism for the remission of sins, engage not to teach the doctrine either in public or private; otherwise he thought they should quietly withdraw from the church, and form themselves into a distinct body. These propositions were rejected with decision and firmness:- the first, as being an infringement on that liberty of speech which Christ, by his ambassadors has granted to all his children; and the second, as being altogether unwarranted by the word of God and the prayer of the Redeemer - John 17:23.

The church was now placed in a most painful situation; to pass a vote on the subject until some of the leaders in the discussion were removed out of the way, was impossible. This arose from the fact that those who attended the meetings at the close of the debate, were so equably divided, it was doubtful which party would have the majority: besides which, we know it to be a fact, that Mr.Bayley had a great objection to propose the exclusion of those whom he, after all, could not but esteem as brethren and sisters in the Lord. A separation, however, took place, and what could not be done by majority, the authority of the pastor accomplished another way. A command was sent to the brethren, that the church was not to break bread in the existing circumstances. The mandate was obeyed, and the consequence was that in about three weeks, thirty-two or thirty-five left, and met together in a separate body. The church was now left few in number, weak in gifts, and almost helpless. While these things were progressing, Mr.A.Brooker, a person of respectability, gifted with a ready utterance, and of considerable attainments in the theology of the present day, had collected forty or fifty persons together, of high Calvinistic principles, baptised believers, and who agreeable to apostolic example, met every first day of the week to break bread, &c. This individual became acquainted with Mr.Bayley and after a lapse of some months, they adjusted matters so as to become united in one body; Mr.Brooker and his friends making it an absolute condition that the church meet from seven to eight o'clock in the evening of the first day of the week to break bread. This again caused a division, when from fifteen to twenty of the old Scotch Baptists withdrew, stating that they could not break bread on the second day instead of the first... The two principle topics of discussion which took place in the (Nottingham) church, was 1st, Baptism for the remission of sins; 2nd, The means employed by the Holy Spirit for the conviction and conversion of sinners, and the sanctification of saints. All the rest were matters anticipated as the necessary results which in their opinion must follow, rather than principles already fixed in the mind. But the fact is, if you depart in the least degree from the THEORY of a Scotch Baptist, however much you may retain and advocate scriptural practices, you are, in the estimation of most of them, much more a heretic than those who, hoping to be saved by faith alone, never, during the whole course of their existence, practice the commandments of Jesus..."10 The church at Nottingham had much in common with those seeking New Testament restoration. The division was not over weekly breaking of bread or immersion, but over baptism for remission of sins. Division at times seemed to come about between those of Calvinistic Scotch Baptist origin and those who came from other traditions.

The church in Adelaide appears to have had similar circumstances to that of churches in Scotland and some in England. There are similarities for instance with Nottingham:

1. Discussion on baptism for remission of sins in a friendly manner.
2. The congregation was evenly divided on the question.
3. Pastor requests there be no public or private teaching on the matter.
4. Eventually, half the congregation withdrew leaving a congregation that remained weak and almost helpless.

The Adelaide Scotch Baptist church was originally highly Calvinistic, but as time went by and more and more non-Calvinistic members joined the church so change came about. By early 1845 a number of members were conversant with the disciples position, when some of them looked for greater expression of that position. When Thomas Playford, an English Baptist minister set up a church on New Testament lines in April 1845, a number of the members of the Morphett St., Scotch Baptist church attended. All but one of them had non-Scotch Baptist origins. Shortly afterward the Scotch Baptist, Thomas Neill, asked Playford about those who could take communion. On discovering that Playford was an "open communionist" the group withdrew and returned to the Scotch Baptist church.

On arriving from New Zealand September 1845, Thomas Magarey sought out the Scotch Baptists, but it wasn't until the end of October that he at last found the Scotch Baptist, Thomas Neill. He discovered from Neill that this congregation had given up the name of Scotch Baptist, assuming that only of a "New Testament Church."

"29 Oct 1845 - Took tea at Mr.Neals. Found that the only difference between us was baptism for the remission of sins which he admitted only in a limited sense. We had some discussion on the subject. Mr.Neal is particularly interested in the subject as some of his friends have written to him who have lately adopted these views."11

"I then went to Mr.Neill on North Terrace, when I found Mrs Neill, who was going out, but who sent one of the children with me up to Mr. Sandford, a shoemaker. Here I found him, also Mr.Jones, Mr.Duke and a man under the influence of drink, but whom they put away for this offence, and has long since been dead. The Mr.Sandford went to England soon after June 8th, 1846 and has been long in fellowship with the enclosed Brethren. I had many interviews with Thomas Neill but we could not come to any doctrinal agreement. I applied for but it was refused on the grounds of the design of baptism. I was then thrown on the Lord Himself, though I continued to attend the meetings."12

"To return to 1846. I was encouraged to make another request for fellowship with the church which professed to give up all human names, and after some interviews with Thomas Neill and another, I was received, but it subsequently appeared that they must have kept some of my views in the background."13

By July 1847, there was an acceptance among the congregation to privately hold the view on baptism for the remission of sins. Thomas Magarey asked for and was given full fellowship. Although restricted in advocating his views, Magarey was able to distribute the Christian Messenger and the writings of Alexander Campbell.

Adelaide, South Australia, August 10th, 1847. Beloved Brother Wallis: May favor, mercy, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you. In a letter from an entire stranger, some explanations are necessary. I was received some time ago into the church in New Zealand by immersion for the remission of sins, having been in this colony nearly two years. I am in connection with a congregation professing New Testament principles, led, in part, by means of your valuable Messenger to discard sectarian names and connections, taking the New Testament alone as their standard and guide. For a time, baptism for the remission of sins was the stumbling block, it being admitted only in a limited sense. A free discussion has been conducted in the most brotherly manner. Brother Campbell's Essay on the Remission of sins, sent by you to this country, has been received, and produced its usual effects. A fortnight ago one was immersed, a presage, we hope, of a rich and abundant harvest...Two young females have since been added to our number. T.Majany. (Magarey) 14

Magarey received books from I.L.Cusey which were invaluable in helping members of the congregation understand the teaching of Alexander Campbell.. August 1847.

"I received from Mr.I.L.Cusey a number of books devoted to the dissemination of primitive Christianity and twelve testaments of A.Campbell's translation: the books were devoutly received by the brethren, a great auxiliary to the cause of truth. Another occurrence this gave me renewed cause to bless the name of the Lord and turned my sorrows into joy. I went one Lord's morning to visit my friends the Raglesses, returned at even the same day through North Adelaide when I learned that a baptism had taken place but my informants could not tell me who were the persons baptised. After overtaking my brethren I soon learned that my beloved was one of the two who had thus publickly declared her willingness to follow her Lord and Master who is now in heaven; with a heart palpitating for joy at the surest devotion manifest by her, I saluted her. That evening all my difficulties vanished my resolve was fixed to avow to her my attachment and to continue in prayer till she made known her decision."15

A good spirit prevailed in the congregation and Thomas Magarey became confident of a growing understanding and acceptance of baptism for the remission of sins. The leadership of the congregation remained firmly in the hands of Calvinistic Baptists but Magarey confidently believed the time was right to seek the help of a teacher and preacher to bring the congregation through to the position of the disciples. His invitation brought Thomas Jackson, the man who led him to the restoration while in New Zealand, to Adelaide in December 1847. Jackson wasted no time in applying for fellowship for he and his wife. He was quite staggered at the arrangements he found in the Franklin Street church. He expected to find an open teaching and acceptance of Baptism for Remission of sins, but in fact he found the opposite. This he could not accept. To be a true Christian one must believe in and practice baptism for the remission of sins. Jackson had had experience with the Scotch Baptists in Glasgow before going to New Zealand in 1843, (he became a disciple in 1840 or early 1841), and would have nothing to do with the Calvinistic position. Jackson forced the issue of baptism for the remission of sins out into the open for public debate, drawing the ire of the leaders and putting them on the defence. A week was required to examine the Jacksons for membership "when the pastor put the following question to us, 'Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?' I answered, 'We believe that faith in the Son of God, repentance, and baptism, are regeneration; and all the regenerated are called to walk in a new life, in hope of immortality with the redeemed forever.' We joined the church by a majority of votes; but it did not end here, it was the cause of bringing up old discussions amongst them, which ultimately led to the pastor and about one half of the members leaving the church, the whole blame of which was laid to you and Brother Campbell; yet it would be much better to censure the Holy Spirit than either you or him. We had two or three still left in the church who contended that Paul's sins were all pardoned, and that he knew it to be the case, before Ananias went to him. I asked for their testimony, but this they could not give from the book, and yet they had not candour to say so. One of these persons, being formerly a deacon, was chosen as pastor in place of him who left; but his reign was short. On the 23rd July, 1848, he collected all his forces to overthrow our arguments, but it was all in vain: he felt the word of God, the sword of the Spirit, to be too powerful for him and his party; he gave way, and he and those who supported him left us in possession of a neat little stone chapel." 16

Captain Scott was the pastor who left with half the congregation in December 1847. It was Thomas Neill and others who left in July 1848.

Thomas Neill had been aware of Campbell's teachings from many years before although he never came to accept them fully. John Lawrie was a fellow member in the Kilmarnock Scotch Baptist church in 1836 when John read Campbell's writings circulating the church and became a convert, breaking away and commencing meetings at Newmilns in 1837. Hugh Lauder had also been a fellow Scotch Baptist and friend in Kilmarnock. At least by 1842 (it may be earlier), Hugh Lauder had assumed leadership responsibility in the Kilmarnock disciples' congregation. Neill was quite aware of Campbell's writings as he indicated to Magarey on his second meeting with him Oct 29, 1845 when discussing baptism for the remission of sins, he was "particularly interested in the subject as some of his friends have written to him who have lately adopted these views." 17

In September 1839, a group of Scottish disciples from Newmilns and some Scotch Baptists from Kilmarnock came to South Australia. The disciples worked property or gained employment south of Adelaide among other Scotch Baptists who had come from Glasgow etc.

John Aird, an ex-Presbyterian and fellow elder with John Lawrie at Newmilns, came to South Australia at the encouragement of Lawrie who was concerned at the scattered disciples south of Adelaide. Word was sent ahead and when the party, which included the John Watsons, arrived at Port Adelaide on the Lady McNaughton October 16, 1847, they were met by members of the Franklin Street Scotch Baptist church and taken to their homes. The next day they broke bread with these brethren. (Itinerant visitors were able to participate in the Lord's Supper. Residents had to qualify for membership before being able to do so.) Aird called the members of Franklin Street disciples indicating a high degree of uniformity of position with himself. It may indicate, though, that the letter written four years after his arrival only reflected the present designation of that congregation. 18 Aird was writing in 1851, twelve months after the re-formation of the Franklin Street church with Thomas Magarey as Secretary, a strong advocate of the name disciple.

During the fortnight after his arrival, Aird travelled the area south of Adelaide contacting the brethren who were scattered over a thinly-inhabited country. 19 On October 31st. a few of these people gathered to celebrate the Lord's Supper and then on November 7th. a church was officially formed. Aird was appointed to preside. John Aird was a good pastor to his people shepherding and helping them, but he often despaired of ever holding his little congregation together as they were always moving from one place to another in pursuit of employment or land. Some fell away from the church, their time devoted to material interests resulting in a loss of love for the Lord.

Jackson's forceful approach to the congregation rallied the majority to vote himself and wife into membership, but his intolerant attitude split the hardline Scotch Baptists from Franklin Street. Magarey was bitterly disappointed at the outcome of Jackson's intolerant attitude to so many of his friends in the church and the criticism that was levelled at him for supposedly giving a false understanding as to where the church was at. "... I never was a member of a church where a division occurred save once at a time which I have omitted to notice. It was in 1847 when Capt.Scott and a party left the church upon failing to carry certain resolutions, aimed at myself, though not so worded. I tried hard to prevent a division, but could not." 20

Magarey had come to realise after the Jacksons arrived that Captain Scott, Thomas Neill and others had deliberately kept his baptismal views in the background when granting him church membership. Upon marrying Elizabeth Verco, March 10, 1848, Magarey and his wife spent nearly two years at Noarlunga where Thomas worked in Ridley's flour mill. They worshipped with a number of Scotch brethren one-and-half miles from the "Horseshoe".

Thomas Magarey enjoyed his time with the church at Noarlunga and wrote some time after his return to Adelaide of his admiration of John Aird and outlined how he believed the question of baptism should be handled and how it was handled while he was with Aird. "The praise of Brother Aird is in the churches in his native land: in the Southern hemisphere the Lord has not a more devoted servant; he is mighty in word and truth, and has been eminently successful in calling sinners to repentance. There are some among us who believe that the actual remission of sins is prior to baptism - that baptism is, therefore, for what they call FORMAL remission. I need not enlarge on these views, as you are well acquainted with them. Knowing that these brethren love and serve the Lord Jesus, and that they contend for the one Lord, one faith, one immersion, &c. we can in all good conscience fellowship with them, so long as they do not restrict us in teaching and preaching the truth. We make a difference between confessing our faith for the information of others, and making that confession a bond of union to others. We cannot, with Brother Campbell and some in the Reformation, receive in some instances unimmersed persons to the table of the Lord; but we feel it our duty to allow the diversity I speak of. By the way, those persons argue that Brother Campbell cannot look upon baptism as for the actual remission of sins, or he would not instance fellowship with one unimmersed. Again, we do not consider the remission of sins as the only object worth speaking of; indeed we look upon it as being one of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. It ought not, therefore, to be the subject of every discourse in the congregation or out of it. We do not consider it the best way to win souls to Christ to be continually abusing the sects; but rather to enlighten our hearers by proclaiming the truth as it is in Jesus, with as little references to existing prejudices as possible. We find that Paul could not be accused of blaspheming the gods in the famous Demetrian uproar. How much more should we be careful not to abuse those who, to say the least, have more of the truth than the pagan Ephesians. Yours in the brightest of hopes." 21

By mid-1849 the Jacksons had left the colony and returned to England. Only six members were present when Philip Messent attended worship in Franklin St., the first Sunday in October 1849. The members were - Archibald Aird, James & Ann Verco, James Magarey, and Philip Santo & wife. The little group had struggled to stay in existence for two years. Messent decided to worship elsewhere. The next month though, the Santos moved to Burra, further depleting the congregation.

Towards the end of 1849 James Magarey wrote to Thomas inviting him to return to Hindmarsh and take over the mill. Thomas came back from Noarlunga at the beginning of 1850, but believing that both parties to a dispute which had divided the church were both wrong, he did not return to Franklin Street but went and worshipped at Captain Scott's church in North Adelaide.

By June of that year, Magarey was willing to attempt to bring about a reconciliation between the handful of those who remained at Franklin St., and some of those who had left (particularly Thomas Neill ). The reconciliation meeting was held in Thomas Neill's home in North Terrace. Twenty-two persons were present including:- Thomas, Jean & Agnes Neill, James & Ann Verco, George Duke, Joseph & Mrs Penfold, Joseph Hicks, Haines, Mr & Mrs Brock, Johanna Isamann, Smith, Samuel McKay, James Magarey, Thomas & Elizabeth Magarey, Matthew & Betsy Ferguson, Archibald Aird. June 23 - T.Neill chosen as President. Verco - Treasurer. Magarey - Secretary. Franklin Street chapel obtained for weekly rental of 6 shillings.

A disruption erupted at the Pultney Street Baptist church over a bill for M-#120 and infant sprinkling, when brethren returned from the diggings. Messent, Burford and others met at Dureya's Photographic Studio for some time. One day in 1852, Messent and others went to Franklin St., the chapel was nearly full and was impressed with the service. It was decided that they seek to join the Franklin st., congregation. Letter from W.H.Burford - West Mitcham, May 13, 1887. Was a member of the original church but ... That Church I left, together with Mr.Nicholson and some others. Subsequently I united with the Church meeting at Zion Chapel, Pultney Street, to the time of the Victoria diggings, when Mr.George Prince, who was the pastor, left; and myself with some others, undertook to carry on the services. On the return of the brethren from the diggings, a disagreement arose, which eventuated in a disruption. Several of the members, with myself, made arrangements afterwards to meet together for fellowship at a room on the first floor of Mr.Dureya's photographic establishment, in King William Street, where the Church was dissolved. Several of the members, including Capt.Scott, myself, Brother P.Messent, and others went to the Christian Disciples, meeting for worship in Franklin Street. With them we held a conference, the result of which was that most of us united with that Church, with which I have been in communion ever since. 22

The experience of division and hurt, his unhappiness at the position taken by some of the Disciples on baptism, finally led Magarey to withraw and join the Brethren in 1880.

Thomas Magarey had then, from the beginning, a growing relationship, through diplomacy with the Scotch Baptists prior to Jackson's arrival in December 1847. He retained a good relationship during his time spent at Noarlunga and shortly afterwards, but by March 1852 while writing to Henry Warren reflecting on the possibility of others coming to the colony, his despair of a factious people led him to say, "Much injury has been done to the cause of the inconsiderate zeal of half-informed men; wounds have been made which will require a long time to heal. This church was originally Scotch Baptist, and if you have had any connection with this self-righteous people, you will know that the most prudent and cautious conduct toward them is required, and even then there is but little hope of saving them from their predestinarian notions. Were I to begin again in Adelaide to advocate a return to the original gospel, I certainly would not waste my efforts on those obdurate people." 23

The question is, when did the Scotch Baptist church become Church of Christ? Like Kilmarnock and many other churches in Scotland, the Scotch Baptist church in Adelaide went through a transitional stage. The influence of those who joined the church holding non-Calvinistic views led to the rejection of sectarian names and the desire to be known only as a New Testament church. Even though the Franklin St. church in January 1846 was referred to as 'a Church of Christ' it also took the name of a Baptist chapel and was still firmly in the hands of the Scotch Baptist leaders. H.R.Taylor is wrong in claiming that the church was opened in the name of "Church of Christ," (The Story of a Century p.17), as a perusal of Almanacs, newspaper advertisement s and articles of the time show that other denominations such as Methodist and Baptist referred to themselves as 'a Church of Christ' also. According to James Wallis and Thomas Jackson a congregation was not the Church of Christ until the church preached 'baptism for the remission of sins.' The Adelaide church could not do that until Thomas Jackson made that possible by dividing the Scotch Baptists from the rest of the congregation. A majority of the congregation voted for the Jacksons to be members indicating more than half the members accepted the position of 'baptism for the remission of sins.' From historical evidence of Scottish and English congregations, the congregation could not be a reformation church just by breaking bread and having immersed believers; what made a Church of Christ was the preaching and acceptance of baptism for the remission of sins as well.

In S.A. conflict or confusion over the name Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ etc., arose after the arrival of evangelists from America and existed until March 1876 when T.J.Gore (an American evangelist and pastor of the Grote Street church) called a meeting to resolve the problem of what the brethren should uniformly call themselves. They decided on Church of Christ. (Minute recorded by A.J.Magarey. Grote St Minutes, S.A. Churches of Christ Archives)

Conclusion

Digest of the History of the Baptist Denomination in South Australia. (Paper prepared by Mr.Price at the request of the Commission of the Association, and read at the Jubilee Meeting at Flinders Street on August 11, 1887.)

It is impossible in this paper to follow minutely the history of the original Church. Two gentlemen were appointed to preach on the Lord's Days, besides others who might be found qualified to exhort on Wednesday evenings.

One of these was Captain Scott, who seems to have been one of the chief means of keeping the Church together until the year 1848. He was engaged throughout his colonial life in rendering service to the Church of Christ.

Mr Prior then left Adelaide and went into the country, and the church soon removed to Morphett Street, where Captain Scott, Mr.Thos.Neill, and others preached and exhorted. Their numbers then increased so that they became able to build a new chapel in Franklin Street which was opened on January 4, 1846. There they continued until 1848, but grave dissensions arose. Captain Scott, Mr.Thomas Neill, and others left them in that year and with their withdrawal it may almost be said that the identity of the original Church was lost. Franklin Street Chapel seems to have been kept open for some time after, but was probably closed altogether at the time of the diggings; it was, however, afterwards re-opened, and it became a means of transition to the formation of the Disciple movement in Grote Street. Along with Captain Scott, Mr.Neill was throughout, from the time of his arrival in 1839 until 1848, a pillar of that first Church.24

The compiler of the Early History of the Church of Christ in S.A. wrote in 1898,"It was in July 1848, that the Scotch Baptist element finally withdrew from the brotherhood, and set up another fellowship elsewhere. So that, we may say it was in July 1848, that the Church of Christ was really established in South Australia, as a body distinct from the Scotch Baptists, and we may fix that date as the point at which its history truly begins." 26

It may be closer to say that a Church of Christ was established at the time the members of Franklin Street voted on the membership of the Jacksons over the question of baptism for the remission of sins - December 24, 1847.

It also may be closer to the truth to recognise that the congregation at Noarlunga established by John Aird, Nov 7, 1847, was the first Church of Christ in S.A.

1 The Early History of the Church of Christ in South Australia. Australian Christian 1898 pp.108,138
2 Paradise of Dissent. Douglas Pike. p.261
3 Christian Messenger 1841. p.355 1842. p.397
4 British Millenial Harbinger 1848. p.245
5 Christian Messenger 1838. p.323
6 ibid 1840. p.144
7 ibid 1849. pp.240-242
8 ibid 1842. p.109
9 ibid 1842. p.286
10 ibid 1842. pp.101-103
11 Thomas Magarey - Journal. p.43
12 Magarey - Memoirs. pp.26-27
13 ibid p.28
14 BMH. 1848. p.191
15 Magarey - Journal p.48
16 BMH 1849. p.525
17 Magarey - Journal. p.43
18 J.Aird, Report, BMH 1851. pp.287-288
19 ibid
20 Magarey - Memoirs. p.31
21 BMH 1851. p.288
22 Truth and Progress, July 1, 1887. p.97
23 BMH 1852. p.568
24 Truth & Progress, Jan 1, 1888.p.3
26 Australian Christian, 1898. p.148